Here there be rants. There will be Freeman stuff, Lawful Rebellion stuff and Random stuff. I am rebelling because I want my country back. My lawful obligations are as follows: “together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they see fit…”
Article 61 Magna Carta 1215

April 22, 2012

Guy Taylor Vs Judge Cadbury

A slightly misleading title.

Guy actually had a beef with another judge, and was asking Judge Nigel Cadbury to enforce the summons Guy had issued.

In Part 1, the judge asks for all mobile phones to be gathered up and switched off. He then states that recording events in court is illegal. These two videos may not stay up for long so be sure to watch them before they are taken down.

The most interesting bit for me is when the judge declares his own incompetency.

No wonder they don't like cameras in court.

As always, decide for yourselves whether the content of the videos have merit.

You might recall that I had an article up a few months ago that involved Cadbury.

He was the judge saying (words to the effect that) "the judiciary were ill-equipped to deal with freemen/lawful rebels" and they (the judiciary) "had better wake up". I paraphrase but that is the gist of it.

My point being that he is aware of us and does not (always) dismiss us as swivel-eyed loons as most members of the Bar do.

oh ok, yeah, they do refer you on to higher courts and that is correct for them to do so, so that's where you go, take it to the next level.

In terms of a 'performance', the defendant/applicant seemed a bit pressured and hurried, spoke too quickly, whereas the judge was calm and measured, unhurried in his speech delivery, I have advised Ranty not to speak in a hurried manner in court, to pause and give your self time to think about what you are saying. Court demeanour is very important, you have to be a better 'actor' than they are.

Good effort guys, for reasons discussed earlier at this blog vis a vis the futitilty of 'treason' actions based on the fact that we've already done that in Aus, I suspect that in citing the constitution you are ceding sovereignty, I think you may be being led up the garden path in terms of a 'treason' case, but obviously I'm not a UK person and yous should do what you feel is right. Liked the Bach interludes.

However appealing the wording of any country's constitution might seem, it's to some extent a 'tell them what they want to hear' document, the American one was drafted by Masons, I mean, were you personally consulted in the making of the constitution? If you weren't then there's no reason for you to bow down and worship it. You might get away with citing the Magna Carta, but the constitution was created by THEM. That's why they feel so free about amending it at their whim. A document that can be altered at the whim of politicians in collusion with a propagadist media is not something lawful rebellers can have hope in.

I do not believe you have a full understanding of just how amending the United States Constitution works otherwise you would not have stated what you did as it can hardly be defined as a "whim".

Please look it up and you will see that it takes several years and is ultimately in the hands of her people for an up or down decision on said amendment. That very scenario was also present in the Colonies in the creation/ratification of the U.S. Constitution itself.

I am not sure where you got your information on this matter but I wish to inform you it is incorrect.

I'm aware that Americans revere their constitution as though it was 'holy'. We've already had a treason case run here based on the constitution, maybe the UKers and the USers and everywhere else need to mount their own cases to see that the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

I always learn a lot from making mistakes, it's the best way to learn!

My understanding is that the court refused an application to issue a summons. The reason being that the application was without merit and vexatious.

The comparison to the council tax summons' did't work as the court technically signs off on those. Whether the signing actually occurs or not, is lawful or not, the process is the court signs off. The Judge would of necessity rely on the process, as otherwise he would be effectively Judging a matter not before him.

Was the Judge suggesting he was incompetent? I do not think so. He suggested appealing the decision to more learned Judges. If you go to a GP, do you consider the GP incompetent if you are referred to a specialist? Why have appeal courts if any one Judge was truely versed in all aspects of law?

An appeal would seem to be the way forward. The main argument would need to be honed. Extranoeus arguments about other matters, including council tax summons, need to be removed.

The argument would need to lead step by step to the conclusion, the current argument seems to stray and become muddled.

`judicial eye`` If you examine past and present prime ministers they ALL have one thing in common. Thatcher showed it, Blair showed it and Brown is now showing it. In time , most if not all political leaders begin to reveal serious flaws in their character to the point they begin to act like megalomaniacs believing only THEY are correct in decisions that eventually ensure their demise. They end up disturbed in their thinking and their decisions ultimately cause enormous damage to all the victims of their flawed policies. There is something about holding power for to long that causes a chain reaction in the ego's of those who seek leadership of political parties.

However the power within the United Kingdom does not reside with Prime Ministers, the REAL power of the British crown lies within the hallowed walls of British courts were an endless procession of victims are BROKEN and made destitute thanks to a hierarchy of power that remains unaccountable, independent and who make decisions SOLELY for the benefit of Britains EVIL and corrupt crown. Anyone who has faced a British judge , but especially a Scottish judge, will realise the same traits that deeply affect the thinking of British prime ministers is even more exaggerated as at least prime ministers can and usually do get BOOTED out of office once they go off the rails into la-la land. However there are thousands of judicial monsters and menaces who despite showing the same warped and deranged thinking remain sitting on the bench for LIFE , very few if any can be removed and the main cause of the internal destruction of British society because of this vast army of disturbed powermongers who hide their flawed thinking behind their robes and regalia.

What is even worse is that they are secret members of the satanic club of Great Britain and are mostly self appointed high level masons with a structure that ensures no matter how extreme and disturbed their decisions are, that network of satanic power gives them even more protection. That at the enormous expense of all the poor souls that have been left penniless and homeless because of an unaccountable judiciary and why they are so resistant to opening up their secret star chambers which would then expose the harm that they have inflicted, for far to long, in the dark corridors of power that they handle with menace. Our group have many years of evidence that show clearly how this monstrous unaccountable system is the most pressing issue that needs to be addressed before Britain can restore confidence in all the structures that used to be there to protect our citizens . It is now the most enormous threat to British life and in the same league as a world war without the physical damage but with the massive psychological damage that judges have been expert at manufacturing while abusing the unsuspecting public for far to long. The British crown and its judiciary steal more peoples assets than all other criminals put together.

So what do the British corporate media do about all of this? Other than regularly promoting the evils of judicial power, they have been complicit with the cover up of the thousands of abuses that take place every day across the country by a judicial mafia who use libel laws to keep any dissent at bay in a corporate media tied to this enormously damaging power and control. That we intend to EXPOSE across the globe while waiting on a mass media that has failed the UK for far to long. The days of the pompous ,arrogant ,aloof and deranged judicial thinking will come to an end that we have never had any doubt. Their victims are organised and have a platform the British media have refused time and again to provide that would have EXPOSED their tyranny.

Appeal the other judge's decision using the law as that is what you are effectively trying to do anyway. This seemed nonsensical to me and a s distraction as it was nothing more than an application for a summons in order to overturn his decision .... why

Issue a lien against him, appeal his decision .. but this seemed to be a waste of time and effort

Do not take me wrong here as I admire your Nation and people but the way you write, I get the drift you folks learned nothing at all from the Magna Carta or the Constitution of the United States of America.

Trust me when I say I am no expert on either document stated above but do know that they are both older and wiser than that of what you speak of.

Maybe it is of time for you and your compatriots re-visit your constitution and model it after a precedent setting document that has stood the test of time and of freedom derived from the Magna Carta in part being my Constitution of the United Sates of America.

@MaverickInitially I thought why not just appeal the original decision? Then thought, what would that achieve? Another Judge says the original Judge may/may not have made an incorrect decision. A simple mistake, next. No precedent set or general principle resolved.

In going down the route of initiating what is in effect a private prosecution, principles and precedents can be established.

Conflating the overturning of the order with trying to show a Judge may have acted ultra vires and having a court re-establish the basic legal framework any court is supposed to operate within, IMHO muddied the argument somewhat.

Much was asked of a court at this level and it was almost certain to be left to a higher court. It seems the only importance here are the reasons the application was denied.

Is there a link to the earlier matter in question, the judge not being under oath or something?

If you find they're not under oath you can simply ask them if they are prepared to state their oath in court. If they do, that puts them under oath and then the court case can proceed. Could be wrong, but that's sorta how I remember it going in my one case, long time ago now.